I hope the employer who hires me doesn't mind if I do all that on the clock!
I don't just question the ever-growing list of must-have profiles and time required to maintain them, but their value in general.
It feels like a sort of arms race to engineer and automate hiring.
It's generally agreed that actually sitting down and talking with a person is strongest source of signal [1] in the hiring model, but rather than focusing on that the model is continually stuffed with a growing set of noisy variables (profiles).
At what point does this filtering start identifying the best profile builders as opposed to the best or brightest employees? Does hiring become a full-on game of prep services and checklists of activities along the lines of college admissions?
1: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-b...
The first automation software for the full hiring process is a going to be a very well marketed solution, not necessarily an effective one.
Ideally, I would see less of a need for specialist recruiters as tech has made connecting with appropriate hires simple enough for someone from the team the hire will work with to conduct interviews.
There's already an element of SEO-style optimisation in resumes as it is. I have a few outside-the-box approaches on how to get around this and I'll be doing a Show HN once I have something together :)
Full-stack indeed. :(
1.) The candidate shows up with a effectively all the required skills. Predictably, logically, the candidate has a roughly average level of skill across the range on average.
2.) The interviewers decide the candidate won't do because he/she is 'only' average in some area that should have been one entry on a short list of required skills in the first place.
Either hire for the skills you actually need and be specific about it or hire the smartest, hungriest people you can find and be honest about what they'll be expected to learn.
3.) Applicant is hired, and paid criminally below-market with above-market stress, because the types of people who explicitly hire "jack of all trades" are generally trying to save money.
Thankfully HackerRankX seems about as likely to catch on as Klout.
Anyway, I'd submit that's the real threat here... this sort of thing is easy to game, and you are talking about the group of people most capable of gaming even the smartest AI algorithm... The top end of the "leaderboards" is going to be a list of cheaters pretty quickly.
And while contributing simultaneously to github, stackoverflow and others community projects could be cumbersome for you, positive externalities are immense. The whole ecosystem benefits from this.
Even if this burden is too heavy, there are always options of 4-day working week, freelance work, project-based work, etc. etc. Programmers are lucky to enjoy most liberty from their profession.
So come on, don't complain, you DON'T HAVE to do anything, unless you want to be the very best.
Sometimes it gets a little ridiculous on the requirements/wants on job postings. Some companies just ask for the world; it can lead to impostor syndrome and it can be stressful.
Software developers here are competing for the best positions on the market, so why the surprise about the requirements?
The opportunities are plentiful for experienced programmer who doesn't play the credentials game and agrees to earn a little less.